Monday, March 3, 2014


Supreme Court narrows right to object to a police search of suspect...

  In the 1930's Europeans risked arrest and even execution to escape the fascist government imposed by Adolf Hitler and his 3rd Reich.  The risked everything to get to America, where freedom and liberty reigned supreme.  Amazingly enough, it only took a mere 84 years for their beloved America to remove the cloak of freedom and liberty and don the cloak of fascism. 
  In recent years it seems America's Constitution is being cannibalized, one amendment at a time.  First the it was the 1st Amendment where freedom of speech, religion and press was protected.  The 1st amendment went down when the all encompassing Federal Hate Crimes Law was enacted.  Then the target by this Liberal/Progressive/Fascist administration went after the 2nd amendment.  The right to keep and bear arms although not completely shredded like the 1st amendment, the 2nd amendment has been ignored by both Federal and State governments.  The Right to Keep and Bear Arms has been curtailed by most states to the point where the right is simply an obscure remnant of the original amendment as written by our founding fathers.  Since the Obama administration, the 10th Amendment has also been made irrelevant as the Federal Government now dictates to the states what rights they have, and do not have.  The states laws, passed and ratified by the people, are being reversed by Federal Judges and Federal Courts as if state's rights and the 10th amendment never existed in the first place.  
  Now, the frosting on the cake for the federal government, and all law enforcement agencies across the country.  Just this past week, the U.S. Supreme Court has determined that the 4th amendment is much to restrictive on the police, and it is much to taxing on magistrates.  Many people are not familiar with the 4th Amendment of the Constitution.  It was the people's protection from illegal, obtrusive invading searches and seizures made by law enforcement agencies.  To make this clear, allow me to write out the entire 4th Amendment:  AMENDMENT IV:  Right of search and seizure regulated:  The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.  In my book, that's pretty self explanatory and easily read by both police and magistrates.  So why this new determination by the Supreme Court?  Because the United States of America no longer has a viable and enforceable Constitution.  Because "We the People" are no longer the recipients of freedom, liberty and justice for all.  
  My deepest thanks to the three very Liberal Supreme Court Justices who voted against this 6-3 decision.  As three Democratically appointed Justices these three were able to see the detriment to the people that will result from this decision.  Justices, Ruth Gator Ginsberg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor should be recognized for the stand they have taken against this terrible injustice pronounced upon the people and the people's 4th Amendment rights.  Never in my lifetime did I think I would ever find myself in agreement with the Liberal Justices and by the same token, find myself disgusted with the so-called Conservative Justices on the highest court in the nation.
  Please take the time to connect to the link I have provided, read it and ask yourself if you would now flee from an oppressive government to the United States for some type of sanctuary.    

Keep reading at:  www.sargee5.blogspot.com

Thanks for the opportunity!!!

God Bless

Views: 173

Comment by Jerseygal on March 4, 2014 at 7:25pm

I'm sharing this on Twitter, Jerome.  This is an important issue, and no matter what this is cloaked under, it is wrong.  It is another guaranteed freedom being taken from us!

Comment by Robin on March 7, 2014 at 7:45pm

Tweeting this out, Jerome! 

Comment by TLC on March 7, 2014 at 8:22pm

One needs to read the original article to understand this case. The battered girlfriend granted permission for the searched. I don't understand why this case even went to SCOTUS.

Anyone who has read my research into Stop and Frisk--Terry laws and the SCOTUS case knows I am very much a defender of the 4th Amendment. In this case a girl had been beaten and granted police permission to search the apartment. In this case the police did no wrong.


Comment by Jerome on March 8, 2014 at 10:07am

TLC, obviously you've missed the point.  It was not "this case" that was the object of decision by SCOTUS, it was the fact that the police were not required to obtain a legal magistrate approved warrant to search the residence.  Now, with this decision no police/law enforcement agencies will ever have to obtain a legal search and seizure warrant.  The "case" itself is irrelevant to the decision.  The result of the decision made by SCOTUS is the point of my contention and that of many legal eagles.  I did read the entire article and it matters not that the girlfriend was allegedly beaten.  Now that SCOTUS has come down on the side of the law enforcement agency on this case, leaves the opening for abuse wide open.  Literally , "this case" was not the object of my Blog Post.

Comment by TLC on March 8, 2014 at 1:02pm

Jerome. I spent over an hour debating this case with my best friend. He sees it as do you. I see it as the girlfriend, after the guy's arrest, maintained control of the residence. Once he was arrested she had the right to give permission for the search. The fact she was beaten is important to this case because it is for that reason he was initially arrested. Had he not beat the GF he would not have been arrested and would have maintained control of the residence.

We can question whether the GF had the right to give permission. I don't have enough facts to decide this. But with only the article as a guide I will assume she lived there and had a right to give permission for the search.

If this particular case was not the object of your post then I am confused. I will need a link to the case on which SCOTUS ruled.  The link you provided was about that case.

As for the need of a warrant to search your home or auto, the Patriot Act did away with that a long time ago. But there are other SCOTUS rulings that have upheld the 4th amendment and some that weakened it greatly.

Comment by Jerome on March 8, 2014 at 3:04pm

I am afraid you are wrong again, the Patriot Act did not do away with the required warrant for search and seizure.  The Patriot Act established a special court to decide what is warranted and what is warrantless.  The FISA court was established under the patriot act and that of course was to counter act and investigate suspected terrorists and suspected terrorist action.  I'm thinking you are still missing the point.  The case to which I provided a link did in fact go to the SCOTUS.  However the ramifications of the Supreme Court's decision does not, and will not stop in the adjudication of this case.  Let me see if I can make a brief explanation.  Back in the 1960's or there about, the law schools discarded the instruction of "Constitutional Law" and replaced it with "Case Law".  Justice under Constitutional Law is quite different than Case Law.  In Constitutional law cases are decided a adjudicated according to the strict wording of the U.S. constitution.  Since constitutional has been replaced by case where cases are adjudicated under opinion of the court made from previous cases, then those cases are used to provide precedence.  The more cases that a adjudicated through the case law system, the further and further away from the constitution purity the decisions are made.  So the laws are stretched so out of proportion to the constitutional wording that many cases are not even remotely akin to the original laws contained in the constitution.  Now that "Case Law" is the so-called accepted way of jurisprudence, it places the most recent past decisions made by the courts understood law to adjudicate cases.  The result is this, once the SCOTUS made their decision on "this case", the decision will also be precedence in future cases.  In this case the result is the rendering of the IV Amendment irrelevant, and therefore your have no right to protest illegal search and seizure of your property or personal effects.  

Comment by TLC on March 8, 2014 at 3:58pm


The above link does say the Fernandez case is the one on which SCOTUS ruled. This article clarifies the events. It says later after Fernandez had been arrested for robbery they went back to the house and ask the girl friend for permission to search. I find it curious they didn't simply get a warrant since they apparently had enough evidence to arrest him.

I still can't say I'm against the ruling because at that time the girlfriend was clearly in  control of the residence. At least now we have a clear ruling. We know now for sure that there is not a consensus needed of all occupants for a search to occur. We must also keep in mind they are simply ruling on California law and saying it doesn't violate the 4th Amendment.

Comment by TLC on March 8, 2014 at 4:12pm

FYI: FISA was established under the Foreign Surveillance Act of 1978.

Comment by Jerome on March 8, 2014 at 5:27pm

My error on the FISA court establishment date.  Either way, there nothing in the Patriot Act that robs citizens of their 4th amendment rights, other wise none of this would have been at issue in the first place.  The police didn't get a warrant, because they blew it.  Law enforcement agencies can never be allowed to consider themselves "the law", as they are not.  The 4th amendment clearly and concisely makes that law, and it isn't up for debate until the constitution is changed, God forbid!!! 

Comment by TLC on March 8, 2014 at 6:00pm

The police did follow the law. They gained permission of the occupant in control of the residence before searching. All the conservative justices, the Cato Institute, and myself all agree. It confounds me that some think only the "man" of the house can give or deny permission.


You need to be a member of Fundamental Refounding to add comments!

Join Fundamental Refounding




Please view our mission, policy, and legal disclaimer to learn about us by visiting the main menu.  Thank you.


AGENDA 21/2030



Let your voice be counted!

House:  http://1.usa.gov/mHZjgo

Senate:  http://1.usa.gov/3UAs






national debt

Founders' Corner

Latest Activity

Robin replied to Robin's discussion HANNITY: New Evidence Proves Clinton-Russia Collusion
"Robert Mueller Was FBI Director at Time of Russia Uranium Sale Cover-Up Robert Mueller, who is the…"
17 hours ago
Robin replied to Robin's discussion HANNITY: New Evidence Proves Clinton-Russia Collusion
"The Hill revealed a bombshell of a story Tuesday morning that connects Russian bribery,…"
17 hours ago
Robin replied to Robin's discussion HANNITY: New Evidence Proves Clinton-Russia Collusion
"Sen. Grassley Probes ‘Conflicts of Interest’ with Russia Senator Chuck Grassley is…"
17 hours ago
Robin posted a discussion

HANNITY: New Evidence Proves Clinton-Russia Collusion

Speaking during his opening monologue on ‘Hannity’ Tuesday night, Sean blasted Hillary Clinton and…See More
17 hours ago
Robin replied to Robin's discussion BE AWARE!! ANTIFA...They’re calling #Nov4itBegins THE PURGE!!! ..... Antifa Hosting Violent Anti-Cop Workshops.... "Our Enemies In Blue":
"Bumping this back to the top. November 4th is fast approaching. Watch your backs and where you…"
Robin replied to Lynn Rackoski's discussion NFL players’ union teamed up with Soros to fund leftist advocacy groups Tax documents show NFLPA activism goes beyond take-a-knee protests
"NFL to formally endorse criminal justice legislation, finance activism boot camp The league will…"
Robin replied to Susan Taylor's discussion Las Vegas shooting: At least 59 dead in massacre Trump calls 'act of pure evil'
"Latest Revelations in Las Vegas Shooter Case Are Absolutely CHILLING This latest development in the…"
Robin replied to Fundamental Refounding's discussion Bannon Enlists Troops for War Against GOP Establishment
"I can't stand Mitch!  McConnell throws shade at Bannon over Senate campaigns:…"
Robin replied to Rick's discussion Trump administration pulling US out of UN agency over 'anti-Israel bias'
"I'm hoping the same thing, JG! Maybe down the road we will see this come to fruition. "
Robin replied to Rick's discussion President Trump Signs Executive Order That Will Allow Sale of Health Insurance Across State Lines Order will 'create a truly competitive national marketplace, bring costs down'
"Trump Notices What’s Happened In US Just Days After He Signed Health Care Executive…"
Robin replied to Robin's discussion EPA's Pruitt announces Trump administration scrapping Obama-era coal regs
"LOL Me too! The left is going nuts. Love it. "
Jerseygal replied to Fundamental Refounding's discussion Bannon Enlists Troops for War Against GOP Establishment
"Yes we have!"
JeansBrother replied to Fundamental Refounding's discussion Bannon Enlists Troops for War Against GOP Establishment
"We have seen it over and over again, haven't we."
Robin replied to Fundamental Refounding's discussion Bannon Enlists Troops for War Against GOP Establishment
"This makes me nervous as well, JG. Don't know how this will all shake out, but, I know that…"
Robin liked Fundamental Refounding's discussion Bannon Enlists Troops for War Against GOP Establishment
Jerseygal liked Lynn Rackoski's discussion IT'S HERE: All the details of Trump's massive tax plan


© 2017   Fundamental Refounding.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service